BACKGROUND: We assessed whether medication safety improved when a medication profiling program was added to a computerized provider order entry system. DESIGN:Between June 2001 and January 2002 we profiled outpatients with potential prescribing errors using computerized retrospective drug utilization software. We focused primarily on drug interactions. Patients were randomly assigned either to Provider Feedback or to Usual Care. Subsequent adverse drug event (ADE) incidence and other outcomes, including ADE preventability and severity, occurring up to 1 year following the last profiling date were evaluated retrospectively by a pharmacist blinded to patient assignment. MEASUREMENTS: Data were abstracted using a study-designed instrument. An ADE was defined by an Adverse Drug Reaction Probability scale score of 1 or more. Statistical analyses included negative binomial regression for comparing ADE incidence. RESULTS: Of 913 patients in the analytic sample, 371 patients (41%) had one or more ADEs. Incidence, by individual, was not significantly different between Usual Care and Provider Feedback groups (37% vs. 45%; p = 0.06; Coefficient, 0.19; 95% CI: -0.008, 0.390). ADE severity was also similar. For example, 51% of ADEs in the Usual Care and 58% in the Provider Feedback groups involved symptoms that were not serious (95% CI for the difference, -15%, 2%). Finally, ADE preventability did not differ. For example, 16% in the Usual Care group and 17% in the Provider Feedback group had an associated warning (95% CI for the difference, -7 to 5%; p = 0.79). CONCLUSION:Medications safety did not improve with the addition of a medication profiling program to an electronic prescribing system.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We assessed whether medication safety improved when a medication profiling program was added to a computerized provider order entry system. DESIGN: Between June 2001 and January 2002 we profiled outpatients with potential prescribing errors using computerized retrospective drug utilization software. We focused primarily on drug interactions. Patients were randomly assigned either to Provider Feedback or to Usual Care. Subsequent adverse drug event (ADE) incidence and other outcomes, including ADE preventability and severity, occurring up to 1 year following the last profiling date were evaluated retrospectively by a pharmacist blinded to patient assignment. MEASUREMENTS: Data were abstracted using a study-designed instrument. An ADE was defined by an Adverse Drug Reaction Probability scale score of 1 or more. Statistical analyses included negative binomial regression for comparing ADE incidence. RESULTS: Of 913 patients in the analytic sample, 371 patients (41%) had one or more ADEs. Incidence, by individual, was not significantly different between Usual Care and Provider Feedback groups (37% vs. 45%; p = 0.06; Coefficient, 0.19; 95% CI: -0.008, 0.390). ADE severity was also similar. For example, 51% of ADEs in the Usual Care and 58% in the Provider Feedback groups involved symptoms that were not serious (95% CI for the difference, -15%, 2%). Finally, ADE preventability did not differ. For example, 16% in the Usual Care group and 17% in the Provider Feedback group had an associated warning (95% CI for the difference, -7 to 5%; p = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Medications safety did not improve with the addition of a medication profiling program to an electronic prescribing system.
Authors: Jonathan C Javitt; Gregory Steinberg; Todd Locke; James B Couch; Jeffrey Jacques; Iver Juster; Lonny Reisman Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Nidhi R Shah; Andrew C Seger; Diane L Seger; Julie M Fiskio; Gilad J Kuperman; Barry Blumenfeld; Elaine G Recklet; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-10-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Terry S Field; Boyd H Gilman; Sujha Subramanian; Jackie C Fuller; David W Bates; Jerry H Gurwitz Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D W Bates; L L Leape; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; J M Teich; E Burdick; M Hickey; S Kleefield; B Shea; M Vander Vliet; D L Seger Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jing Du; Young-Taek Park; Nawanan Theera-Ampornpunt; Jeffrey S McCullough; Stuart M Speedie Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michael P Krajewski; QingXiang Mo; Chi-Hua Lu; Albert Cantos; Steve Feuerstein; Michael J Brandt; Robert G Wahler Journal: J Pharm Technol Date: 2022-07-15